[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5973942,"mediaKeyId","5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835","parentId",5829773,"title","Charlton planning board continues hearing on L & B Enterprises site plan at 29 Southbridge Road","audioSeconds",2262,"startMs",24000,"endMs",2286000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835&start=24&end=2286","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835/thumbnail_24000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5973942/Town-of-Charlton/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/Charlton-planning-board-continues-hearing-on-L-B-Enterprises-site-plan-at-29-Southbridge-Road","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973942-e4068582dddbba42974e9343e9c4fb1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153782&Signature=k9ZGM2LpRFhcrwKass1ZvGQMsBrM2bEpLwaQK8dypTgC3YsVPPUGT~~Cm4mNl8DO9tAsghob36K8dNcNShYb~xbbxj26Ypad0nuVjh-6Q565GL5xb3PRPYKzkY1MyeS9w8XrHGlWhest-a98OKnRqMju0RDrlS-lY91Q~~Lu0S0NFVzEs-0IevIdhnigKIZOyaYY-G9JY2LgcvsrnXBs2hjsCoh3VRLTAjtnF3lf8uSFfd1TMKv1vHWJIqySr8rVLBTXQ9fzG6bXuPeDesCBvPNaz0OYS-55xtChiCBPSA9NwwKR45SQS-xeH50OJNJA8eEqPARI0Iwvx5y1N6WSCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Charlton","date","2025-09-25T22:44:06.233Z","article","The Charlton Planning Board on Sept. 17 continued a public hearing on a site‑plan application by L & B Enterprises LLC to add a 1,280‑square‑foot addition to an existing building at 29 Southbridge Road (Map 33, Block B, Parcel 22.1). The board voted to continue the hearing to Oct. 1 to allow the applicant to deliver revised elevations, final building plans and outstanding responses to Graves Engineering’s peer review.

The applicant’s surveyor and project representative, Mika Lassell of Topland Land Survey, told the board the property is subject to conservation jurisdiction and falls largely inside riverfront and wetland buffer zones. “Because of Caddy Brook, we have flood plain,” Lassell said, and described a proposed 1:1 restoration approach for riverfront alterations. Lassell also described stormwater controls including a storm separator (storm scepter) and roof‑area infiltration and said the finished floor elevation will be 624, roughly 3.3 feet above the 100‑year flood elevation of 621.

Why it matters: The parcel sits adjacent to Caddy Brook and inside a wellhead protection radius and riverfront area, which triggers state and local environmental review requirements. The board and conservation commission will review whether proposed mitigation and the infiltration approach sufficiently protect water quality and avoid increased flood risk.

Board members and staff noted several outstanding items in Graves Engineering’s recent peer review and in the town building inspector’s comments. Lassell said Graves’ comments were largely clarifications and that the project team had submitted a response the day before the meeting; she provided paper copies at the hearing. The applicant described plans for a holding tank to receive floor‑drain plumbing from overhead doors and said the existing on‑site septic system, installed last year, is adequate for the proposed uses.

On parking and occupancy, Lassell said one tenant (identified in discussion as a sign/graphic business) and another tenant (Precision Welding, which assembles medical equipment) are expected to occupy portions of the building. The applicant proposes 15 parking spaces on site, though Lassell told the board that current occupancy likely requires far fewer spaces — roughly four to five spaces for the identified tenants — and that the plan provides “bookends” so future tenant changes can be evaluated. She said the team can pursue additional parking on adjacent property if future demand requires it.

The application treats roof runoff as clean water and directs it to infiltration measures; new paved areas will have pretreatment before discharge. Lassell described corrugated piping for roof runoff conveyance and indicated typical dimensions used on the plan (an 8‑inch corrugated line discharging to a 6‑inch outlet). She also noted the property lies within an IWPA (wellhead protection) radius and that the plan places infiltration and pretreatment measures consistent with IWPA guidance.

Conservation commission interaction: Lassell said she had met with the Charlton Conservation Commission (ConCom) and that conservation staff appeared receptive to the 1:1 mitigation approach for riverfront work. She said DEP did not provide comments on the submission. The applicant intends to present the same materials to ConCom while addressing Graves Engineering’s outstanding checklist items.

Next steps and conditions: Board members instructed the applicant to submit final building elevations, architecture and signed responses to outstanding engineering comments before the Oct. 1 meeting. The board also asked that soil test pits and any remaining test holes for subsurface soils be completed or conditioned prior to site work. The board formally continued the public hearing to Oct. 1; a motion to continue carried unanimously.

Additional context: The property is in the Community Business zoning district and is approximately 58,460 square feet. The board and staff emphasized that a change in tenant use that increases parking or alters the use classification would require return to the board or a building inspector determination. Lassell said the applicant planned to remove an on‑site storage container and several old dumpsters and would clean and repave portions of the lot in staged work.

The board did not take a final site‑plan vote on Sept. 17 and deferred decision until receipt of the outstanding engineering and architectural materials.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Board Meeting September 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Charlton Planning Board on Sept. 17 continued a public hearing on a site‑plan application by L & B Enterprises LLC for a 1,280‑square‑foot addition at 29 Southbridge Road, citing outstanding peer‑review and architectural materials and scheduling a follow‑up hearing Oct. 1.","taxTitle","Town of Charlton, Worcester County, Massachusetts","taxId",54464,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973937,"Applicant advised to file definitive subdivision to upgrade paper street for new house on private way",821,2301000,3122000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835&start=2301&end=3122","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835/thumbnail_2301000.jpg","/articles/5973937/Town-of-Charlton/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/Applicant-advised-to-file-definitive-subdivision-to-upgrade-paper-street-for-new-house-on-private-way","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973937-1e403c1550f10c4c34c5251dd24d49df/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153782&Signature=TINZFKvuoL0s2xkmsWo-AN53wXdTQYoyHHKP06BoVexsCtolWjxPp-YBpk8TE9OfFTH4Fubh1nfLOKUqBc88e63OoTqI5zeBF-Iz18KsnpQLPoo4d5nCdBZbNkAwqLUFztyBXCe262mBiaSIchAjelhG64fIT8-~xltmK267Io1JYV~xpowQgGgaX5hJlzOMME-4IWYQcBxABRP9fT1f3ceT9BGUBhzNLKPkzmh7qXgzTRYpFSrDBwxNNHKbleuV-yn570UQfbaaTumbH9eGS4YEbt4E7QdKh5Te6DTXjjTXZUoJLoch4gqILuAtdW1sgGeth6YZczAj8HxDAGus7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Charlton Planning Board discussed a request by applicant Chris Hansen for guidance on upgrading a paper street (private way) to create frontage and access for a buildable lot. The board advised Hansen to file a definitive subdivision application under the statute covering pre‑existing plan streets and to list any waivers his engineer will request.

Hansen said the paper street (labeled on plans and described at the hearing) is unbuilt and wooded and that he intends to create a gravel way to serve a two‑bedroom house on a roughly 10,000‑square‑foot lot. He told the board the proposed gravel drive would be between about 75 and 125 feet long to the new driveway and that he is working with the Board of Health and has secured variances for septic reserve trenches. He said he will consult the fire chief about any turnout or turnaround requirements and will have his engineer prepare a stamped plan with particular waivers identified.

Board counsel and an outside attorney in the meeting explained the process for paper streets that appear on older plans. The board’s legal counsel advised the applicant that a definitive subdivision application is the standard path even when the way is ‘grandfathered’ by a pre‑existing plan; the applicant may request waivers for dimensional standards (width, dead‑end length, turning radius) but must demonstrate safe access, stormwater controls and utility access. The attorney said the statutory protection for paper streets means the applicant “is not required to meet those requirements [that derive from later subdivision rules]” when the way predates subdivision control law, but the board will still seek safe‑access assurances.

The board noted that precedent in the neighborhood includes long‑standing private gravel ways created decades ago; the planning board’s determination on waivers typically depends on whether the proposed improvements provide safe, maintainable access. Planning staff asked Hansen to compile a waiver list with his application and to include plans showing gravel specifications and any stormwater measures, and recommended he engage the fire department early to identify emergency‑vehicle turning or surface requirements. Hansen indicated he would file the definitive subdivision application and pay the required fees.

No formal vote was taken; the board provided procedural guidance and asked for a full application package with identified waivers and stamped engineering plans before returning to the board.","An applicant seeking to upgrade a paper street to provide frontage for one new house was directed by the Charlton Planning Board to submit a definitive subdivision application and a list of waiver requests, with engineering details and fire‑department input.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973932,"Charlton planning board begins rewrite of decommissioning/surety language, flags attorney‑general review for energy storage",938,3222000,4160000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835&start=3222&end=4160","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829773-f56ed9d137e91f190c9667e979d16835/thumbnail_3222000.jpg","/articles/5973932/Town-of-Charlton/Worcester-County/Massachusetts/Charlton-planning-board-begins-rewrite-of-decommissioningsurety-language-flags-attorneygeneral-review-for-energy-storage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973932-295edac3b6213c37aef33992428274d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153782&Signature=jhZcMn21C~3rZUyVL-wOUtjPCy8vmxFEyFsy~qtX~9pU8Axiauekii5CIFqvCa9dfu7PVsNGeHaFAkTOAKmyrt9D4Sl10wb5Btltj3TqrqiAM5aZ6RPp~pqCjMChhEhOzoB7sEdfVJZgvXQD~-Qz2nZi-HdiU9vcm~c0e31Mug3Ugzr-dCfm5lOx1eyuBsQTRJ6q~N4pi-8wSjTtFCkqaZMhzgjeG0JQ1lL-z7mklcrqUKkKPNYP4XWp1mGgJOO~TQxo5DHDUzXnNhm6VZxN8Km8u9VMVfwY67xyItaKy4cQKk4zx7QlAzo4v9adv8lDUA33lQ3IO7S0t7YoxLkSGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Charlton Planning Board spent an extended portion of its Sept. 17 meeting discussing proposed changes to the town’s decommissioning and surety requirements for energy projects, and specifically whether to fold battery energy storage into existing solar regulations or handle it separately.

Board member discussion and staff comments focused on two goals: tightening the town’s surety language to ensure decommissioning funds cover hazardous‑materials and wetland mitigation claims, and avoiding collateral risk that the Attorney General’s office might strike down unrelated provisions of an older solar bylaw. A staff member said a separate provision for battery energy storage systems (BESS) would reduce the chance that revising surety language for batteries would reopen or undermine the town’s existing solar bylaw.

Planning staff and the board said they will work with town counsel to redraft the surety and decommissioning provisions. The staff asked counsel to recommend language that the board can present to town meeting that accomplishes the board’s policy goals while minimizing the risk of an adverse Attorney General review. The board emphasized the need to tighten the definition of acceptable forms of surety and to require surety instruments that cover environmental and hazardous remediation in addition to ordinary decommissioning activities.

Board members said developers of solar and battery projects had pushed back on a proposed policy that would require a 25% cash escrow (a town staff suggestion intended to ensure funds remain available for decommissioning). Counsel and board members acknowledged that projects that applied under the older law or during legislative extension periods may not be subject to a new cash requirement; the board discussed negotiating acceptable forms of surety (cash deposit, surety bond, standby letter of credit) and reviewing the issuer’s strength before acceptance.

The board instructed staff to work with town counsel (Jonathan, referenced in the meeting) on language that clarifies the town’s expectations on forms of surety, environmental coverage and claim windows, and to prepare a separate bylaw or article for battery energy storage if that approach reduces legal risk. Board counsel volunteered to draft suggested language and to advise on AG office scrutiny. No binding vote was taken; the board agreed to continue work on the draft and to return with legal language and a recommended approach to present to town meeting.","Board members and counsel discussed tightening decommissioning and surety language for renewable energy and battery energy storage projects, with staff recommending separating battery storage provisions from the town’s solar bylaw and asking town counsel to draft language likely to withstand Attorney General scrutiny","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Charlton planning board continues hearing on L & B Enterprises site plan at 29 Southbridge Road

Applicant advised to file definitive subdivision to upgrade paper street for new house on private way

Charlton planning board begins rewrite of decommissioning/surety language, flags attorney‑general review for energy storage